From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murray v. Allen

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Oct 21, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1014 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2010)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding prisoner's allegations regarding a single incident in which he was served a burrito containing a tooth, although "stomach churning," did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation

Summary of this case from Morrow v. Trinity Servs. Grp., Inc.
See 6 Summaries

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1014.

October 21, 2010

ORDER

THOMAS O'NEILL JR., District Judge

AND NOW, this 21st day of October, 2010, upon consideration of Aramark's motion to dismiss and plaintiff's response thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Aramark are DISMISSED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint alleging facts sufficient to state a claim against Aramark within 30 days of the date of this Order.

Summaries of

Murray v. Allen

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Oct 21, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1014 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2010)

holding prisoner's allegations regarding a single incident in which he was served a burrito containing a tooth, although "stomach churning," did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation

Summary of this case from Morrow v. Trinity Servs. Grp., Inc.

holding prisoner's allegations regarding a single incident in which he was served a burrito containing a tooth, although "stomach churning," did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation

Summary of this case from Walker v. Ramirez

holding that isolated incidents of maggots in food is not sufficiently serious

Summary of this case from Jamison v. Varano

holding prisoner's allegations regarding a single incident in which he was served a burrito containing a tooth, although "stomach churning," did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation

Summary of this case from McKinney v. Giorla

finding that "an occasional incident of a foreign object finding its way into [prison] food, while regrettable, does not raise a question of constitutional proportion"

Summary of this case from Miller v. Fraley

dismissing Eighth Amendment claim of prisoner who bit into a burrito containing a tooth

Summary of this case from Burgess v. Aramark Corr. Servs.
Case details for

Murray v. Allen

Case Details

Full title:KHALIL MURRAY v. C/O ALLEN, ETAL

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Oct 21, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1014 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2010)

Citing Cases

Walker v. Ramirez

Such allegations simply do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Mckinney v. Giorla,…

Sutton v. City of Phila.

Moreover, Aramark can only be held liable under § 1983 if one of its policies or customs was the “moving…

13 Citing Cases